Eric's Beijing Diary

I went to a small family church this morning near Wudaokou. I had been interested in going there for some time. After the service, I had a talk with the pastor. I asked him what he thought about Shouwang Church. I told him that I thought the fact that they had allowed their "house church" to grow to 1000 members was what was causing them so much trouble. The pastor told me that he did not believe that was the issue. He told me that there are other family churches in the Beijing area that also have very large numbers, and they have not had trouble. He seemed to feel that the Shouwang Church's "in your face" approach had more to do with why they were having problems..

He's probably right, at least partly. One of the other family churches that is very large is composed of business people who are using private business property as their meeting place. The Shouwang church has purchased a place as a church organization. In other words, they are operating as a mega-church in a place that requires churches to be registered, but without registering. Put another way, they were operating in a manner that would have effectively forced the government to essentially abandon the policy. Their position was completely unrealistic. The pastor said that they were not breaking any laws, but this statement is a bit hollow, because they certainly were violating the government policy re: family churches, and they were doing it quite deliberately.

I am conflicted about all this, because even though I don't like mega-churches, I really don't think it's the government's business to decide how large a church should be. Mega-churches tend to be impersonal, and they basically throw scriptural principles like church discipline to the wind, because they have let themselves get so large that it is logistically impossible for them to follow through with those principles. Mega-churches do not facilitate the development of Christianity in a community nearly as well as smaller, more family oriented churches. Mega-churches tend to promote development of a "program oriented" Christianity. But again, what business is it of the government to make decisions like this?

Although there seems to be a consensus among family church pastors that the Shouwang Church people placed themselves in an untenable situation, to their credit, several of those family church leaders signed a letter of support for Shouwang Church. We'll see how much good it does. For the sake of the Shouwang Church members, I do feel some anguish. But for the sake of the church as a whole in China, this situation only serves to underscore the tremendous growth the unofficial church has enjoyed--unregistered churches in Beijing have to have several hundred members before the police can even think about shutting them down.

Started a new Bible Study in Guomao recently. As luck would have it, there was an artist in the crowd. Not sure it quite does me justice, but I was amused.

Ever since I have come to Beijing I have seen a pattern that concerns me somewhat. Young people who go to University in the university district (Haidian) move to the Central Business District after they graduate. They always tell me that they are going to keep coming back to Haidian Church every Sunday, but all to often, they just disappear. So I decided to have a Bible study in that area two times a month. It helps me to see people on a regular basis that I don't usually see very often. Professional people in Beijing are very often quite fluent in English--several of these folks work for international companies. But due to the religious restrictions in China, there are only about "Three Self (registered)" churches in Beijing. But there are probably several thousand family churches. But these churches are all Chinese, and many young professional would prefer to have something in English. There are quite a number of those kinds of Bible studies in China these days, but most of them are on or near university campuses.

Heart-rending story in today's paper about a woman who's husband urged a divorce on her because he could no longer support her due to his illness. She remarried but required her new husband to accept her continued care for her first husband. So now she takes care of two families.

This story reflects the nose-to-the-grindstone realism of countryside people in China. It tends to be the theme of Zhang Yimou's old movies (before he joined the martial arts craze). The characters in those movies deal with the trials of life by suffering through them.

Interesting article in the South China Morning Post this am about the Shouwang Church. The article was pretty well written, in contrast to much of what I read about China in the western media. I don't know..perhaps it isn't completely accurate to call the South China Morning Post "western media," since it is indigenous to Hong Kong. Yet, that is precisely why it tends to be viewed as such. It has never been under the strictures of China's communist regime, and the media controls that we are all so familiar with when it comes to papers published in mainland China.

I am back in Hong Kong again. News is a bit different here. I guess I should be more specific. News about China is different here. China's CCTV is a very well funded outfit. So there are many very informative programs. I find CCTV quite useful, actually. It is not true that Chinese media outlets are mere mouthpieces for the Communist Party. I rather think the party keeps itself quite removed from what goes on in the media most of the time. The problem is that in China everything is under the party. So if the party wants to use a given government media outlet as a mouthpiece, they do so at will. Notice I said, "government" media outlet. In today's China, there are many media outlets that are not government outlets. They cannot be used as mouthpieces for the party. So it is perhaps not accurate to say that they are "controlled" by the party. But even the media outlets that are not owned by the government are still regulated by the government. There are limits to what they can say, and if they violate those limits, they will pay the price.

There is one statement in the article with which I might argue a bit. The article refers to "clandestine" house churches. This is a common view that seems to be reflected in stuff you read about the house churches in China. In fact, although they don't tend to advertise their presence openly, it is not accurate to call them "secret." They used to be. There was indeed a time in the history of New China when house churches met in secret so as not to be discovered by the authorities. But that time has passed. House churches are not illegal in China, as mentioned previously.

I am a bit conflicted by this whole issue. The government policy I mentioned the other day actually has a good affect on the church in China. But is it the government's business to decide how churches should be organized? So while it is right to point out that the Shouwang church is and has been violating a policy in a way that they always knew could get them into trouble, it is heartening, in a way, to see a group of people challenging that policy in a way that forces the discussion about how much the government gets to dictate to a given church how large they can be. This is going to be interesting to watch.

I have a task in the Task Scheduler that opens a hot link to my favorite Internet radio station every morning at 5 o'clock. This morning I woke to the news that I had missed a very important anniversary yesterday--the 400th birthday of the King James Bible. I cut my teeth on the King James Bible, so I was interested when I was reminded that the King James Bible was 400 years old this year. Seems the day passed without much fanfare. The King James Bible seems to be a forgotten book. Part of that, I guess, is becuase it is too hard to understand for speakers of modern English. King James grammar is a little hard to get used to if you are not familiar with it, and there are no courses you can take, as far as I know.

I never read the King James Bible exclusively, so I don't agree with those among the Fundamentalists who suggest that the King James is the only Bible we should be reading. I heard a song recorded by a popular Christian musician who said, "all I hath needed thy hand hath provided." It's like scratching on a chalkboard every time I listen to it (I have, he hath--just so you know). My point is that modern young people cannot be expected to like the King James. It's just not written in their language.

I got a lot of help during my middle school years from the Amplified Bible. Wore out two of them. And I read the old American Standard (1901) on e-sword now, because it is the only English language version that translates LORD correctly as "Jehovah." The distinction between Lord and LORD in most English versions is too subtle for most people. I would venture that most native speakers of English do not know the difference between the two words, because they are indistinguishable when read a loud, and the distinction is all but unnoticeable in print. The Bible I carry with me and use in Bible studies is the English Standard Version (actually a bilingual version with the Chinese). So I am not, and have never been a "King James only" type. But it must still be said that the King James version is a tremendous contribution to the English language. I have always said that the King James Bible is God's gift to the English speaking people. I don't know of any other language group that has a Bible of the same literary quality as the King James (except for the original Hebrew Old Testament).